Nwabueze Nwankwo & Anor V. Bernard Uguru Agwo & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. 

 The Claimants, now Appellants, filed a suit in the High Court of Abia State in Suit No. HU/96/2013 against the Defendants, now Respondents, as per the writ of summons on 11/06/13 and the statement of claim filed on 7/12/13 seeking the following reliefs:
?(a) A declaration that the Claimants are entitled to the statutory right of occupancy of a piece or parcel of land known as and called ?ISI OBA UKORO? situate at Ofeke Ndume Ibeku Umuahia in Umuahia North Local Government Area, Abia State, within the jurisdiction of the Court, with an annual rent value of N10.00.
(b) The Sum of Nine hundred Thousand Naira being special and general damages for trespass to the aforesaid piece or parcel of land by the Defendants.
(c) An order of perpetual injunction permanently restraining the Defendants, servants, agents and/or work men from entering or interfering with the ISI OBA UKORO land in any manner whatsoever.?

The particulars of special damages were stated as follows:
(a) 320 Yam Plants at N250.00 each = N75,000.00
(b) 500 Cassava Stems at

1

N200.00 each = N100,000.00
(c) 250 Maize Stands at N200.00 each = N50,000.00
Total Special Damages = 225,000.00
General Damages = 675,000.00

The above claims were also reflected on the amended Statement of Claim filed by the Appellant on page 204 of the Records of appeal. That was in reaction to the statement of defence by the Respondents, filed on 17/10/2013, and the subsequent replies filed by the parties.
?
Upon the hearing of the case and consideration of evidence and addresses of Counsel, the Learned trial Judge, Hon. Justice Agru Umah Kalu, on 12/6/14, rejected the evidence of ownership by the Appellants and the Exhibit C, the proceedings and decisions of native arbitration between one Nnomele Aboki Ekpo and the 1st Claimant over the land in dispute in 2009, and held;
I seem to believe that the Defendants are the people in possession of the land in dispute and have exercised acts of ownership on the land. Now to the several and various arbitrations or the awards flowing from each as the evidence suggests that the native arbitrations were all clearly tainted. It seemed that each partly simply got a group of

2

Okonko Society members favourable to its cause and such group will conduct proceedings and make awards to favour the side it had sympathy for. I prefer not to accord, any respectability to any of the native arbitrations and of course, I will accord no probative value to the purported awards made by those native arbitrations.
? In sum I find no merit in the claimants? case, which I proceed to dismiss. Costs to the defendants? payable by the claimants fixed at #10,000.00? (See pages 379-380 of the Records).
?
That is the judgment Appellants appealed against, as per their Notice of Appeal, filed on 11/8/14. See pages 381 to 390 of the Records of Appeal. Appellant filed their Brief of argument on 18/12/2014 and distilled six (6) Issues for the determination of the appeal, namely:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he rejected the uncontroverted and conclusive evidence of the traditional history of the land in dispute adduced by the Claimant through CW1 on the ground that the said evidence of traditional history was not corroborated by another witness (Grounds 1 and 2).
(2) Whether the trial Judge having

3

rejected the evidence of the traditional history of the land in dispute adduced by the defendants for being inconclusive can turn round to rely on the same evidence of traditional history by the Defendants to come to a conclusion that the land in dispute was deforested by Eleazu or Elemnazu (Ground 3)
(3) Whether the Claimants proved acts of possession and ownership exercised on the land in dispute by Ijee, the father of the 1st Claimant?s family over a long period of time. (Grounds 4, 5 and 6)
(4) Whether the trial Judge was right when he said that the Defendants are in possession of the land in dispute and have exercised acts of possession over the land in dispute. (Ground 7)
(5) Whether the trial Judge was right by not according probative value to the verdict of native arbitration tendered by the Claimant, particularly the arbitration between Nnomete Aboki Ekpo and the 1st Claimant, tendered as Exhibit C (Ground 8)
(6) Whether the Claimants proved special damages by giving evidence of numbers and particulars of tones destroyed by the Defendants ? (Grounds 9).
?
The Respondents filed their brief on 16/6/15, which was deemed

4

duly filed on 28/1/16 and adopted the issues for the determination of the appeal as distilled by the Appellants.

When the appeal came up for hearing on 17/5/15, Appellants? Counsel, C. N. Nwokorie Esq. who settled the brief, on Issue one, submitted that the trial Court was wrong when it rejected the uncontradicted and conclusive evidence of the traditional history of the land in dispute adduced by the Claimants through CW1, saying that the evidence was not corroborated by another witness. He argued that the trial Court did not find any defect or gap in the evidence of traditional history adduced by the Claimant, but rejected it on the sole ground that it was not corroborated by another witness. Counsel said what the trial Court said was not a true position of law on issue of evidence of traditional history; that such evidence requires no corroboration to be accepted; that there is no requirement of law either in Evidence Act or decided cases that evidence of traditional history should be corroborated. He relied on the case of Amadi vs. Amadi (2011)15 NWLR (Pt.1271) 437 at 460, wherein Eko JCA said:
?Now, to the tacit rejection of

5